The Dutch Legal System for cowering to Political Correctness and Islam, and thereby destroying Free Speech.
Showing posts with label Dhimmi Award. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dhimmi Award. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Jihad Watch Award winners 2009!
At last, the toon is here! One of the world's premier anti-jihad cartoonists, David Washburn, has graced us with the above toon of the 2009 Jihad Watch Award winners:
American Anti-Dhimmi: Rifqa Bary
Anti-Dhimmi Internationale: Geert Wilders
American Dhimmi: Barack Obama
Dhimmi Internationale: Gordon Brown
with thanks to JihadWatch
Sunday, December 20, 2009
MASH Latest Recipients of the Dhimmi Award:Facebook and Youtube
For allowing Jihadist sites to incite violence and hatred which is against their terms of service.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
David Horowitz: The Worst Decision by a US President in History
The Obama administration has taken a giant step in its march to throw in the towel in the war against radical Islam.
On FoxNews this morning, Peter King said of the decision to try the soldiers of al-Qaeda — who by their own account have no country but their cause — as civilians
“may be the worst decision by a U.S. president in history.”
It certainly is. It sends a signal to terrorists everywhere to attack civilians.
The administration is justifying its decisions on the grounds that because the 9/11 attackers targeted civilians they should be tried as civilians.
This makes no sense unless you are a Democrat who believes that the “holy war” that Islamic jihadists have formally declared on us is no different from the acts of isolated individuals who have decided to break the law.
This is the approach to the war on terror that John Kerry championed in 2004. Now that Americans have had the poor judgment — the suicidally poor judgment — to make a leftist their president, this is the strategy our nation is set to pursue.
The decision to try the jihadists in a civilian court is also a decision which will divulge America’s security secrets to the enemy since civilian courts afford defendants the right of discovery.
It is also a propaganda gift to Islamic murderers who will turn the courtroom into a media circus to promote their hatred against the Great Satan — a hatred shared by their apologists at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the pro-Castro Center for Constitutional Rights who have pioneered the campaign against Guantanamo and whose influence in the Obama Administration is pervasive.
(BTW, The newly appointed lawyer for the president is the husband of Obama’s recently departed Maoist communications director Anita Dunn.)
Finally, this move continues and enlarges the refusal of the President and the American Left to recognize that:
- We are in a war that has been declared on us — in which we, in other words, are the victims.
- That the war is conducted by religious armies whose war is inspired by their reading of the Koran.
- That the number of Muslims who support their war plan is in the tens of millions
- That they are aided and abetted by many Islamic governments and by the international Left.
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
Friday, November 13, 2009
Dr. Phil and the Fort Hood Killer
His terrorist motive is obvious to everyone but the press and the Army brass.
By Dorothy Rabinowitz
It can by now come as no surprise that the Fort Hood massacre yielded an instant flow of exculpatory media meditations on the stresses that must have weighed on the killer who mowed down 13 Americans and wounded 29 others. Still, the intense drive to wrap this clear case in a fog of mystery is eminently worthy of notice.
The tide of pronouncements and ruminations pointing to every cause for this event other than the one obvious to everyone in the rational world continues apace. Commentators, reporters, psychologists and, indeed, army spokesmen continue to warn portentously, "We don't yet know the motive for the shootings."
What a puzzle this piece of vacuity must be to audiences hearing it, some, no doubt, with outrage. To those not terrorized by fear of offending Muslim sensitivities, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's motive was instantly clear: It was an act of terrorism by a man with a record of expressing virulent, anti-American, pro-jihadist sentiments. All were conspicuous signs of danger his Army superiors chose to ignore.
What is hard to ignore, now, is the growing derangement on all matters involving terrorism and Muslim sensitivities. Its chief symptoms: a palpitating fear of discomfiting facts and a willingness to discard those facts and embrace the richest possible variety of ludicrous theories as to the motives behind an act of Islamic terrorism. All this we have seen before but never in such naked form. The days following the Fort Hood rampage have told us more than we want to know, perhaps, about the depth and reach of this epidemic.
A shocked Dr. Phil, appalled that the guest had publicly mentioned Maj. Hasan's Islamic identity, went on to present what was, in essence, the case for Maj. Hasan as victim. Victim of deployment, of the Army, of the stresses of a new kind of terrible war unlike any other we have known. Unlike, can he have meant, the kind endured by those lucky Americans who fought and died at Iwo Jima, say, or the Ardennes?
It was the same case to be presented, in varying forms, by guest psychologists, the media, and a representative or two from the military, for days on end.
The quality and thrust of this argument was best captured by the impassioned Dr. Phil, who asked us to consider, "how far out of touch with reality do you have to be to kill your fellow Americans . . . this is not a well act." And how far out of touch with reality is such a question, one asks in return—not only of Dr. Phil, but of the legions of commentators like him immersed in the labyrinths of motive hunting even as the details of Maj. Hasan's proclivities became ever clearer and more ominous.
To kill your fellow Americans—as many as possible, unarmed and in the most helpless of circumstances, while shouting "Allahu Akbar" (God is great), requires, of course, only murderous hatred—the sort of mindset that regularly eludes the Dr. Phils of our world as the motive for mass murder of this kind.
As the meditations on Maj. Hasan's motives rolled on, "fear of deployment" has served as a major theme—one announced as fact in the headline for the New York Times's front-page story: "Told of War Horror, Gunman Feared Deployment." The authority for this intelligence? The perpetrator's cousin. No story could have better suited that newspaper's ongoing preoccupation with the theme of madness in our fighting men, and the deadly horrors of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, than this story of a victim of war pressures gone berserk. The one fly in the ointment—Maj. Hasan had of course seen no war, and no combat.
Still, with a bit of stretching, adherents of Maj. Hasan-as-war-victim theme found a substitute of sorts—namely the fears allegedly provoked in him by his exposure, as an army psychiatrist, to the stories of men who had been deployed. The thesis then: Maj. Hasan's mental stress, provoked by the suffering of Americans who had been in combat, caused him to go out and butcher as many of these soldiers as he could. Let's try putting that one before a jury.
These were speculations, Gen. Casey repeatedly cautioned. We need to be very careful, he explained, "We are a very diverse army." Mr. Stephanopolous then helpfully summarized matters: This case then was either a case of premeditated terror—or the man just snapped.
The general was not about to address such questions. He was there to recite the required pieties, and describe the military priorities . . . which are, it appears, a concern above all for the sensitivities of a diverse army, a concern so great as to render even the mention of salient facts out of order, as "speculation.'" "This terrible event," Gen. Casey noted, "would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty."
To hear this, and numerous other such pronouncements of recent days, was to be reminded of all those witnesses to the suspicious behavior of the 9/11 hijackers who held their tongues for fear of being charged with discrimination. It has taken Maj. Hasan, and the fantastic efforts to explain away his act of bloody hatred, to bring home how much less capable we are of recognizing the dangers confronting us than we were even before September 11.
It can by now come as no surprise that the Fort Hood massacre yielded an instant flow of exculpatory media meditations on the stresses that must have weighed on the killer who mowed down 13 Americans and wounded 29 others. Still, the intense drive to wrap this clear case in a fog of mystery is eminently worthy of notice.
The tide of pronouncements and ruminations pointing to every cause for this event other than the one obvious to everyone in the rational world continues apace. Commentators, reporters, psychologists and, indeed, army spokesmen continue to warn portentously, "We don't yet know the motive for the shootings."
What a puzzle this piece of vacuity must be to audiences hearing it, some, no doubt, with outrage. To those not terrorized by fear of offending Muslim sensitivities, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's motive was instantly clear: It was an act of terrorism by a man with a record of expressing virulent, anti-American, pro-jihadist sentiments. All were conspicuous signs of danger his Army superiors chose to ignore.
What is hard to ignore, now, is the growing derangement on all matters involving terrorism and Muslim sensitivities. Its chief symptoms: a palpitating fear of discomfiting facts and a willingness to discard those facts and embrace the richest possible variety of ludicrous theories as to the motives behind an act of Islamic terrorism. All this we have seen before but never in such naked form. The days following the Fort Hood rampage have told us more than we want to know, perhaps, about the depth and reach of this epidemic.
A shocked Dr. Phil, appalled that the guest had publicly mentioned Maj. Hasan's Islamic identity, went on to present what was, in essence, the case for Maj. Hasan as victim. Victim of deployment, of the Army, of the stresses of a new kind of terrible war unlike any other we have known. Unlike, can he have meant, the kind endured by those lucky Americans who fought and died at Iwo Jima, say, or the Ardennes?
It was the same case to be presented, in varying forms, by guest psychologists, the media, and a representative or two from the military, for days on end.
The quality and thrust of this argument was best captured by the impassioned Dr. Phil, who asked us to consider, "how far out of touch with reality do you have to be to kill your fellow Americans . . . this is not a well act." And how far out of touch with reality is such a question, one asks in return—not only of Dr. Phil, but of the legions of commentators like him immersed in the labyrinths of motive hunting even as the details of Maj. Hasan's proclivities became ever clearer and more ominous.
To kill your fellow Americans—as many as possible, unarmed and in the most helpless of circumstances, while shouting "Allahu Akbar" (God is great), requires, of course, only murderous hatred—the sort of mindset that regularly eludes the Dr. Phils of our world as the motive for mass murder of this kind.
As the meditations on Maj. Hasan's motives rolled on, "fear of deployment" has served as a major theme—one announced as fact in the headline for the New York Times's front-page story: "Told of War Horror, Gunman Feared Deployment." The authority for this intelligence? The perpetrator's cousin. No story could have better suited that newspaper's ongoing preoccupation with the theme of madness in our fighting men, and the deadly horrors of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, than this story of a victim of war pressures gone berserk. The one fly in the ointment—Maj. Hasan had of course seen no war, and no combat.
Still, with a bit of stretching, adherents of Maj. Hasan-as-war-victim theme found a substitute of sorts—namely the fears allegedly provoked in him by his exposure, as an army psychiatrist, to the stories of men who had been deployed. The thesis then: Maj. Hasan's mental stress, provoked by the suffering of Americans who had been in combat, caused him to go out and butcher as many of these soldiers as he could. Let's try putting that one before a jury.
These were speculations, Gen. Casey repeatedly cautioned. We need to be very careful, he explained, "We are a very diverse army." Mr. Stephanopolous then helpfully summarized matters: This case then was either a case of premeditated terror—or the man just snapped.
The general was not about to address such questions. He was there to recite the required pieties, and describe the military priorities . . . which are, it appears, a concern above all for the sensitivities of a diverse army, a concern so great as to render even the mention of salient facts out of order, as "speculation.'" "This terrible event," Gen. Casey noted, "would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty."
To hear this, and numerous other such pronouncements of recent days, was to be reminded of all those witnesses to the suspicious behavior of the 9/11 hijackers who held their tongues for fear of being charged with discrimination. It has taken Maj. Hasan, and the fantastic efforts to explain away his act of bloody hatred, to bring home how much less capable we are of recognizing the dangers confronting us than we were even before September 11.
Source: WSJ - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574525831785724114.html
George Casey
Latest recipients of The Dhimmi Award
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Despite ban, Holder to speak to CAIR-linked group
Attorney General Eric Holder has agreed to give a keynote speech next week to a Michigan group which includes the local branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations even though the FBI has formally severed contacts with the controversial Muslim civil rights organization.
On Nov. 19, Holder is scheduled to speak in Detroit to the first annual awards banquet of Advocates and Leaders for Police and Community Trust, a coalition of several dozen law enforcement and community groups.
An online registration form for the event includes the Council on American Islamic Relations-Michigan on a list of “official & participating organizations.”
On Nov. 19, Holder is scheduled to speak in Detroit to the first annual awards banquet of Advocates and Leaders for Police and Community Trust, a coalition of several dozen law enforcement and community groups.
An online registration form for the event includes the Council on American Islamic Relations-Michigan on a list of “official & participating organizations.”
A spokeswoman for ALPACT confirmed that CAIR is a member of the coalition.
“CAIR has been involved for a while,” said Chandra McMillion, community development facilitator for ALPACT. “CAIR is listed as an official member.”
The executive director of CAIR’s Michigan chapter, Dawud Walid, also confirmed its involvement with ALPACT. “It’s really nothing controversial. We’ve been part of this organization for years,” he said. “We meet every month and included with us is the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the FBI.”
Walid said he is a regular at ALPACT meetings—including one held Friday at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Detroit. “A lot of people are there: the NAACP, the ACLU, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee…the National Lawyers’ Guild,” he said.
The FBI claims it cut “formal contacts” with CAIR after federal prosecutors in the 2007 criminal trial of officers of a Texas-based Islamic charity, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, introduced documents the government said showed links between CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood, which gave rise to Hamas. Read more here ...
Source: Politicio
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Father of 9/11 Victim Fights to Have 'Murdered by Muslim Terrorists' Inscribed on Son's Memorial
By Douglas Kennedy
KENT, Conn. - Peter Gadiel wants everyone to remember his son, James, who was killed during the September 11 terrorist attacks.
And he also wants people to remember how he died: "Murdered by Muslim terrorists."
For Gadiel, any tribute to his son would be woefully incomplete without those words.
"I think it's important, because I think there's a nationwide effort to suppress the identity of the people who were involved in the attacks," Gadiel told Fox News.
Eight years ago, 23-year-old James Gadiel worked for Cantor Fitzgerald on the 103rd floor of the World Trade Center. He died when a hijacked plane crashed into the North Tower.
For years, Gadiel's hometown of Kent, Conn., has wanted to honor the young man with a memorial plaque next to its town hall. But the tribute has hit a snag because James' father wants to include the phrase, "Murdered by Muslim terrorists," under his son's name.
For Peter Gadiel, it is a central fact of the Sept. 11 attacks that is often left out. Read more ...
KENT, Conn. - Peter Gadiel wants everyone to remember his son, James, who was killed during the September 11 terrorist attacks.
And he also wants people to remember how he died: "Murdered by Muslim terrorists."
For Gadiel, any tribute to his son would be woefully incomplete without those words.
"I think it's important, because I think there's a nationwide effort to suppress the identity of the people who were involved in the attacks," Gadiel told Fox News.
Eight years ago, 23-year-old James Gadiel worked for Cantor Fitzgerald on the 103rd floor of the World Trade Center. He died when a hijacked plane crashed into the North Tower.
For years, Gadiel's hometown of Kent, Conn., has wanted to honor the young man with a memorial plaque next to its town hall. But the tribute has hit a snag because James' father wants to include the phrase, "Murdered by Muslim terrorists," under his son's name.
For Peter Gadiel, it is a central fact of the Sept. 11 attacks that is often left out. Read more ...
Source: Fox News
Latest recipient of The MASH Award
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
MASH message for Peter Gadiel:
Dear Mr. Gadiel,
You said: "Muslims have to acknowledge that it was their co-religionists who committed this act in their name." We couldn't agree with you more. Please know that there are Muslims who are disgusted with Kent officials' cowardice. Without acknowledging what happened on 9/11, there is no way forward. Germany acknowledged the Holocaust and other atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis in WWII and Germans became a better people for it. We would like to add our voices to your demand that "Murdered by Muslim terrorists" be added on your son's memorial plaque.
Respectfully,
Muslims Against Sharia
Dear Mr. Gadiel,
You said: "Muslims have to acknowledge that it was their co-religionists who committed this act in their name." We couldn't agree with you more. Please know that there are Muslims who are disgusted with Kent officials' cowardice. Without acknowledging what happened on 9/11, there is no way forward. Germany acknowledged the Holocaust and other atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis in WWII and Germans became a better people for it. We would like to add our voices to your demand that "Murdered by Muslim terrorists" be added on your son's memorial plaque.
Respectfully,
Muslims Against Sharia
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Judge Rules in Favor of Hamas/al-Qaeda-Related Charity
Judge stops terror probe of Ohio charity
October 26, 2009
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — The U.S. government must halt its investigation into whether a charity should be deemed a terrorist organization, a judge ruled Monday.
KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian Development cannot be labeled a "specially designated global terrorist" pending further action by U.S. District Judge James Carr in Toledo, Ohio.
KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian Development cannot be labeled a "specially designated global terrorist" pending further action by U.S. District Judge James Carr in Toledo, Ohio.
Carr in August ruled that the government violated the Constitution by secretly freezing the charity's assets in 2006. The charity had asked him to halt the investigation pending further action regarding the August ruling.
Treasury officials said KindHearts was connected with the Hamas-affiliated Holy Land Foundation and the al-Qaeda-affiliated Global Relief Foundation. KindHearts leaders have denied being connected to any terrorist group and say the group is a nonprofit charitable organization that administers humanitarian aid to the world's poor.
In his Monday ruling, the judge said the government's actions could cause KindHearts to lose its attorneys and harm its reputation.
"Defendants are requiring KindHearts to respond to allegations that I have found constitutionally lacking," Carr wrote. "This ... has severely prejudiced KindHearts' ability to respond especially in light of defendants' arbitrary and capricious denial of KindHearts' requests to pay attorneys fees with its own blocked resources.
"To analogize, KindHearts not only is blindfolded, but also has its hands tied behind its back," the judge wrote.
KindHearts has asked the judge to alter the process by which the government designates groups terrorist organizations and allow it to use its funds to pay legal fees, said Alan Kabat, a Washington attorney representing the charity.
"We're very pleased with the court's ruling," he said. "The effect is to postpone any designation until the judge has ruled on the remedy for any violations that have already occurred."
Both sides are to present written arguments to the judge by Jan. 11.
In his August ruling, Carr said the government has an obligation to tell an organization why it is freezing its assets and give it a chance to respond.
The government had argued that the judge did not have the authority to issue an order stopping the investigation.
Dean Boyd, a U.S. Department of Justice spokesman, said the government is reviewing the ruling and had no immediate comment late Monday.
Source: AP
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Islamists who want to destroy the state get £100,000 funding
Members of a group regarded as an 'organisation of concern’ by the Home Office has secured large government grants for schools, reports Andrew Gilligan.
Leading members of a group that wants to bring down the British state and replace it with a dictatorship under Islamic law have secured more than £100,000 of taxpayers’ money for a chain of schools.
Accounts filed at the Charity Commission show that the Government paid a total of £113,411 last year to a foundation run by senior members and activists of Hizb ut-Tahrir - a notorious Islamic extremist group that ministers promised to ban.
The public money helped run a nursery school and two Islamic primary schools where children are taught key elements of Hizb’s ideology from the age of five.
Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, last night described the disclosure as “astonishing and outrageous” and accused the Government of “sleeping on the job”.
Hizb regards integration as “dangerous” and says that British Muslims should “fight assimilation” into British society. It wants to create a global Islamic superstate, or “caliphate”, initially in Muslim-majority countries and then across the rest of the world.
It says that “those [Muslims] who believe in democracy are Kafir”, or apostates. It orders all Muslims to keep apart from non-believers and boycott “corrupt” British elections and political processes. It has a tiny following and its views are rejected by most British Muslims.
Hizb, which operates worldwide, insists it is non-violent and condemned the London bombings.
However its website previously displayed a leaflet urging Muslims to “kill [Jews] wherever you find them” and at a rally in London earlier this year, Imran Waheed, its chief media adviser in Britain, said that there could be “no peace” with Israel, calling on Muslims to “fight” a “jihad… in the way of Allah” against it.
Its anti-Semitism has resulted in the group being banned in Germany and on some British university campuses.
After the bombings in London on July 7, 2005, Tony Blair, who was then prime minister, also promised to ban Hizb, describing it as “fanatical”.
A ban has not been introduced but the Tories have pledged to outlaw the group and the Home Office continues to regard it as an “organisation of concern”.
The three schools - in Tottenham, north London, and Slough, Berks - are run by the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation, a registered charity. The foundation’s lead trustee is Yusra Hamilton, a leading Hizb activist who is married to Taji Mustafa, the group’s chief spokesman in Britain. Read more here ...
Leading members of a group that wants to bring down the British state and replace it with a dictatorship under Islamic law have secured more than £100,000 of taxpayers’ money for a chain of schools.
Accounts filed at the Charity Commission show that the Government paid a total of £113,411 last year to a foundation run by senior members and activists of Hizb ut-Tahrir - a notorious Islamic extremist group that ministers promised to ban.
The public money helped run a nursery school and two Islamic primary schools where children are taught key elements of Hizb’s ideology from the age of five.
Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, last night described the disclosure as “astonishing and outrageous” and accused the Government of “sleeping on the job”.
Hizb regards integration as “dangerous” and says that British Muslims should “fight assimilation” into British society. It wants to create a global Islamic superstate, or “caliphate”, initially in Muslim-majority countries and then across the rest of the world.
It says that “those [Muslims] who believe in democracy are Kafir”, or apostates. It orders all Muslims to keep apart from non-believers and boycott “corrupt” British elections and political processes. It has a tiny following and its views are rejected by most British Muslims.
Hizb, which operates worldwide, insists it is non-violent and condemned the London bombings.
However its website previously displayed a leaflet urging Muslims to “kill [Jews] wherever you find them” and at a rally in London earlier this year, Imran Waheed, its chief media adviser in Britain, said that there could be “no peace” with Israel, calling on Muslims to “fight” a “jihad… in the way of Allah” against it.
Its anti-Semitism has resulted in the group being banned in Germany and on some British university campuses.
After the bombings in London on July 7, 2005, Tony Blair, who was then prime minister, also promised to ban Hizb, describing it as “fanatical”.
A ban has not been introduced but the Tories have pledged to outlaw the group and the Home Office continues to regard it as an “organisation of concern”.
The three schools - in Tottenham, north London, and Slough, Berks - are run by the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation, a registered charity. The foundation’s lead trustee is Yusra Hamilton, a leading Hizb activist who is married to Taji Mustafa, the group’s chief spokesman in Britain. Read more here ...
Source: Telegraph
H/T: David F.
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
Saturday, October 24, 2009
The Mullahs' Useful Idiot
By Dick Morris
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has fallen for Iran’s line that it is not developing nuclear weapons, but only wants the ability to develop one to achieve its place in the sun among the great nations of the earth.
In an interview on a Sunday show and in a leak in The New York Times that seems to have come from her (since it uses the same language), she notes that “there’s a small space for doubt (about Iran’s intention to build a bomb) because there are some contrary indicators. There is no doubt in my mind that they want nuclear energy and nuclear power, which they are entitled to, to be able to use it for peaceful purposes. The real problem is once you do that and you get what’s called a breakout capacity, it’s not long before you could do the other (build a bomb). So that’s why this is so important to address now.”
Pressed to comment on a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that it was clear that Iran was headed toward building a bomb, Hillary demurred. Read more ...
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has fallen for Iran’s line that it is not developing nuclear weapons, but only wants the ability to develop one to achieve its place in the sun among the great nations of the earth.
In an interview on a Sunday show and in a leak in The New York Times that seems to have come from her (since it uses the same language), she notes that “there’s a small space for doubt (about Iran’s intention to build a bomb) because there are some contrary indicators. There is no doubt in my mind that they want nuclear energy and nuclear power, which they are entitled to, to be able to use it for peaceful purposes. The real problem is once you do that and you get what’s called a breakout capacity, it’s not long before you could do the other (build a bomb). So that’s why this is so important to address now.”
Pressed to comment on a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that it was clear that Iran was headed toward building a bomb, Hillary demurred. Read more ...
Source: FPM
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Blocking UNRWA's Terror Ties
By Jamie Glazov
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Asaf Romirowsky, a Middle East analyst and Adjunct Scholar at the Middle East Forum.
FP: Asaf Romirowsky, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Romirowsky: Thanks for having me.
FP: Tell us about the new UNRWA accountability bill.
Romirowsky: After much pressure from Congressman like Mark Kirk (R – IL) and Steve Rothman (D – NJ) and others we are now seeing a new bill entitled UNRWA accountability. It demands transparency and responsibility from UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency). The bill seeks to ensure that the monies funneled to UNRWA from the United States do not fund acts of terrorism in any way (bringing the funding into compliance with the US Foreign Assistance Act of 1961). Read more ...
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Asaf Romirowsky, a Middle East analyst and Adjunct Scholar at the Middle East Forum.
FP: Asaf Romirowsky, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Romirowsky: Thanks for having me.
FP: Tell us about the new UNRWA accountability bill.
Romirowsky: After much pressure from Congressman like Mark Kirk (R – IL) and Steve Rothman (D – NJ) and others we are now seeing a new bill entitled UNRWA accountability. It demands transparency and responsibility from UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency). The bill seeks to ensure that the monies funneled to UNRWA from the United States do not fund acts of terrorism in any way (bringing the funding into compliance with the US Foreign Assistance Act of 1961). Read more ...
Source: FPM
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
Saturday, October 10, 2009
German Publisher, Fearing Muslim Retaliation, Cancels Honor-Killing Novel
A German book publisher has canceled a novel about Islamic "honor killings," fearing that the book would offend the Muslim community and put him in danger. Critics of the decision call it a cowardly move, but others say the publisher is simply being responsible.
The publisher of the book, which was to have been titled "To Whom Honor is Due," has indicated that he withdrew the book after an expert on Islam warned that some of the passages could spark violent retaliation from Muslims.
"After the Muhammad cartoons, one knows that one can't publish sentences or drawings that defame Islam without expecting a security risk," Felix Droste, of Droste Verlag publishing, told the German newspaper Der Spiegel last week. He referred to a series of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad that were published in Denmark in 2005 and sparked deadly violence across the Muslim world.
Depictions of the Prophet Muhammad are forbidden in Islam.
This new controversy comes on the heels of Yale University Press' refusal to print the cartoons that were published in Denmark in a new book that details the controversy surrounding them.
It also recalls other recent incidents: In 2008, Random House pulled The Jewel of Medina, a book about one of Muhammad's wives, and in 2006 a German theater cancelled a play in which Muhammad gets beheaded.
Gabriele Brinkmann, the author of "To Whom Honor is Due," has been speaking out about the cancellation of her book.
“It’s a scandal for a publisher to tuck its tail between its legs. This is anticipatory obedience," Brinkmann said, according to the German newspaper Die Tageszeitung.
But Droste Verlag spokeswoman Nora Tichy pointed to statements by Droste that were published Wednesday, in which he said he was primarily motivated by a desire to respect all religions — "whether Christianity, Islam or Judaism."
He said he still plans to release a book that involves an honor killing next year, but that it will not contain controversial passages such as one in the cancelled book in which a chracter says "You can shove your Koran up your…”
That passage, said Ibrahim Hooper, director of communications for the Council of American Islamic Relations, would offend Muslims. But while he would prefer to see the book go unpublished, he said Droste has every right to release it.
"Obviously it's offensive. The question is do they have the right to publish it, and the answer is yes," Hooper said.
"Now, they also have the right not to publish. That's really something that should be up to the publisher. And we would hope that [the decision] would be based on good faith and respect for others and not due to potential violence."
But Nonie Darwish, the author of "Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law," said the publisher had every right to be afraid. Read more here ...
Source: FoxNews
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
Friday, October 9, 2009
Delivering Aid to Terrorists a "City Purpose" in New York?
New York City Council member Charles Barron, who also serves as the Chair of the Higher Education Committee, helped lead a convoy with 200 activists to Gaza this summer for a group that openly advocates for the terrorist organization Hamas.
Barron (D-Brooklyn) sought advice from the city's Conflict of Interest Board (COIB) prior to his trip: Is it permissible for the group to pay for his travel expenses?
A COIB attorney said it "appears that the trip will serve a City purpose," based on the representation Barron offered – that the visit to Gaza would involve delivering relief and medical supplies and meeting "with leaders of charitable organizations, schoolteachers, students, heads of refugee camps, patients and nurses."
Charles Barron, terrorism enabler
New York is America's ultimate melting pot, with sizeable constituencies from all over the world. When a New York City official visits Ireland or Italy, it historically has been viewed as spreading goodwill for New York and thus, serving the city.
But it's doubtful those trips involved meetings with leaders of terrorist organizations.
Charles Barron's trip to Gaza, along with two of his staff members, was paid by Viva Palestina, a group launched by British Member of Parliament George Galloway who has twice led convoys to Gaza that culminated in meetings with, and delivery of more than $2 million in the form of cash and supplies directly to Hamas officials. The cost of each person's travel was estimated at $2,400. The United States has designated Hamas a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and outlawed providing support to it. Last November, a federal jury in Dallas convicted five former officials of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development of violating that and other laws like it.
Barron came to lead the convoy, which left the United States in July, after Galloway passed him the baton upon reaching Gaza, as noted in an account provided by convoy participant Hector Carreon. According to Carreon's report, Galloway called Barron "one of the most important new and rising voices in the Democratic Party of Barack Obama, the City Councilman of New York City to whom I now hand over formally the leadership the American Viva Palestina convoy, Councilman Charles Barron." Upon their arrival in Gaza, both Galloway and Barron knelt down in a Muslim prayer position.
Barron did not respond to calls seeking comment. The Investigative Project on Terrorism has been unable to obtain the letter Barron sent to the COIB detailing what he expected to happen on the trip. However, the response obtained from a COIB attorney includes a summary of Barron's representations – making no mention of meetings with Hamas officials. A COIB attorney said board staffers are not allowed to comment on their communication with city officials. Read more ...
Barron (D-Brooklyn) sought advice from the city's Conflict of Interest Board (COIB) prior to his trip: Is it permissible for the group to pay for his travel expenses?
A COIB attorney said it "appears that the trip will serve a City purpose," based on the representation Barron offered – that the visit to Gaza would involve delivering relief and medical supplies and meeting "with leaders of charitable organizations, schoolteachers, students, heads of refugee camps, patients and nurses."
New York is America's ultimate melting pot, with sizeable constituencies from all over the world. When a New York City official visits Ireland or Italy, it historically has been viewed as spreading goodwill for New York and thus, serving the city.
But it's doubtful those trips involved meetings with leaders of terrorist organizations.
Charles Barron's trip to Gaza, along with two of his staff members, was paid by Viva Palestina, a group launched by British Member of Parliament George Galloway who has twice led convoys to Gaza that culminated in meetings with, and delivery of more than $2 million in the form of cash and supplies directly to Hamas officials. The cost of each person's travel was estimated at $2,400. The United States has designated Hamas a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and outlawed providing support to it. Last November, a federal jury in Dallas convicted five former officials of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development of violating that and other laws like it.
Barron came to lead the convoy, which left the United States in July, after Galloway passed him the baton upon reaching Gaza, as noted in an account provided by convoy participant Hector Carreon. According to Carreon's report, Galloway called Barron "one of the most important new and rising voices in the Democratic Party of Barack Obama, the City Councilman of New York City to whom I now hand over formally the leadership the American Viva Palestina convoy, Councilman Charles Barron." Upon their arrival in Gaza, both Galloway and Barron knelt down in a Muslim prayer position.
Barron did not respond to calls seeking comment. The Investigative Project on Terrorism has been unable to obtain the letter Barron sent to the COIB detailing what he expected to happen on the trip. However, the response obtained from a COIB attorney includes a summary of Barron's representations – making no mention of meetings with Hamas officials. A COIB attorney said board staffers are not allowed to comment on their communication with city officials. Read more ...
Source: IPT News
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Alan M. Dershowitz: Ex-President For Sale
Jimmy Carter is making more money selling integrity than peanuts.
I have known Jimmy Carter for more than 30 years. I first met him in the spring of 1976 when, as a relatively unknown candidate for president, he sent me a hand written letter asking for my help in his campaign on issues of crime and justice.
I had just published an article in The New York Times Magazine on sentencing reform, and he expressed interest in my ideas and asked me to come up with additional ones for his campaign.
Shortly thereafter, my former student Stuart Eisenstadt, brought Carter to Harvard to meet with some faculty members, me among them. I immediately liked Jimmy Carter and saw him as a man of integrity and principle. I signed on to his campaign and worked very hard for his election.
When Newsweek magazine asked his campaign for the names of people on whom Carter relied for advice, my name was among those given out. I continued to work for Carter over the years, most recently I met him in Jerusalem a year ago, and we briefly discussed the Mid-East.
Though I disagreed with some of his points, I continued to believe that the was making them out of a deep commitment to principle and to human rights.
Recent disclosures of Carter's extensive financial connections to Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi Arabia , had deeply shaken my belief in his integrity.
When I was first told that he received a monetary reward in the name of Shiekh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan, an d kept the money, even after Harvard returned money from the same source because of its anti-Semitic history, I simply did not believe it.How could a man of such apparent integrity enrich himself with dirty money from so dirty a source?
And let there be no mistake about how dirty the Zayed Foundation is. I know because I was involved, in a small way, in helping to persuade Harvard University to return more than $2 million that the financially strapped Divinity School received from this source.
Initially I was reluctant to put pressure on Harvard to turn back money for the Divinity School, but then a student at the Divinity School Rachael Lea Fish -- showed me the facts.
They were staggering. I was amazed that in the 21st century there were still foundations that espoused these views. The Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow-up - a think-tank funded by the Shiekh and run by his son hosted speakers who called Jews "the enemies of all nations," attributed the assassination of John Kennedy to Israel and the Mossad and the 9/11 attacks to the United States' own military, and stated that the Holocaust was a "fable."
(They also hosted a speech by Jimmy Carter.) To its credit, Harvard turned the money back. To his discredit, Carter did not. Read more here ...
I have known Jimmy Carter for more than 30 years. I first met him in the spring of 1976 when, as a relatively unknown candidate for president, he sent me a hand written letter asking for my help in his campaign on issues of crime and justice.
I had just published an article in The New York Times Magazine on sentencing reform, and he expressed interest in my ideas and asked me to come up with additional ones for his campaign.
Shortly thereafter, my former student Stuart Eisenstadt, brought Carter to Harvard to meet with some faculty members, me among them. I immediately liked Jimmy Carter and saw him as a man of integrity and principle. I signed on to his campaign and worked very hard for his election.
When Newsweek magazine asked his campaign for the names of people on whom Carter relied for advice, my name was among those given out. I continued to work for Carter over the years, most recently I met him in Jerusalem a year ago, and we briefly discussed the Mid-East.
Though I disagreed with some of his points, I continued to believe that the was making them out of a deep commitment to principle and to human rights.
Recent disclosures of Carter's extensive financial connections to Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi Arabia , had deeply shaken my belief in his integrity.
When I was first told that he received a monetary reward in the name of Shiekh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan, an d kept the money, even after Harvard returned money from the same source because of its anti-Semitic history, I simply did not believe it.How could a man of such apparent integrity enrich himself with dirty money from so dirty a source?
And let there be no mistake about how dirty the Zayed Foundation is. I know because I was involved, in a small way, in helping to persuade Harvard University to return more than $2 million that the financially strapped Divinity School received from this source.
Initially I was reluctant to put pressure on Harvard to turn back money for the Divinity School, but then a student at the Divinity School Rachael Lea Fish -- showed me the facts.
They were staggering. I was amazed that in the 21st century there were still foundations that espoused these views. The Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow-up - a think-tank funded by the Shiekh and run by his son hosted speakers who called Jews "the enemies of all nations," attributed the assassination of John Kennedy to Israel and the Mossad and the 9/11 attacks to the United States' own military, and stated that the Holocaust was a "fable."
(They also hosted a speech by Jimmy Carter.) To its credit, Harvard turned the money back. To his discredit, Carter did not. Read more here ...
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
Monday, October 5, 2009
You Can't Say That
At the UN, the Obama administration backs limits on free speech.
By Anne Bayefsky
The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. The newly-minted American policy was rolled out at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which ended in Geneva on Friday. American diplomats were there for the first time as full Council members and intent on making friends.
President Obama chose to join the Council despite the fact that the Organization of the Islamic Conference holds the balance of power and human rights abusers are among its lead actors, including China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia. Islamic states quickly interpreted the president's penchant for "engagement" as meaning fundamental rights were now up for grabs. Few would have predicted, however, that the shift would begin with America's most treasured freedom.
For more than a decade, a UN resolution on the freedom of expression was shepherded through the Council, and the now defunct Commission on Human Rights which it replaced, by Canada. Over the years, Canada tried mightily to garner consensus on certain minimum standards, but the "reformed" Council changed the distribution of seats on the UN's lead human rights body. In 2008, against the backdrop of the publication of images of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper, Cuba and various Islamic countries destroyed the consensus and rammed through an amendment which introduced a limit on any speech they claimed was an "abuse . . . [that] constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination." Read more ...
The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. The newly-minted American policy was rolled out at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which ended in Geneva on Friday. American diplomats were there for the first time as full Council members and intent on making friends.
President Obama chose to join the Council despite the fact that the Organization of the Islamic Conference holds the balance of power and human rights abusers are among its lead actors, including China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia. Islamic states quickly interpreted the president's penchant for "engagement" as meaning fundamental rights were now up for grabs. Few would have predicted, however, that the shift would begin with America's most treasured freedom.
For more than a decade, a UN resolution on the freedom of expression was shepherded through the Council, and the now defunct Commission on Human Rights which it replaced, by Canada. Over the years, Canada tried mightily to garner consensus on certain minimum standards, but the "reformed" Council changed the distribution of seats on the UN's lead human rights body. In 2008, against the backdrop of the publication of images of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper, Cuba and various Islamic countries destroyed the consensus and rammed through an amendment which introduced a limit on any speech they claimed was an "abuse . . . [that] constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination." Read more ...
Source: The Weekly Standard
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
Sunday, October 4, 2009
U.S. co-sponsors anti-free speech resolution at the UN
Free speech death watch. The U.N. Human Rights Council approved the resolution, cosponsored by the U.S. and Egypt, yesterday.
It calls on states to condemn and criminalize "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence." It also condemns "negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups," which is of course an oblique reference to accurate reporting about the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism -- which is always the focus of whining by the Organization of the Islamic Conference and other groups about negative "stereotyping" of Islam. They never say anything when people like Osama bin Laden and Khaled Sheikh Mohammed issue detailed Koranic expositions justifying violence and hatred; but when people like Geert Wilders and others report about such expositions, that's "negative stereotyping." Read more ...
It calls on states to condemn and criminalize "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence." It also condemns "negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups," which is of course an oblique reference to accurate reporting about the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism -- which is always the focus of whining by the Organization of the Islamic Conference and other groups about negative "stereotyping" of Islam. They never say anything when people like Osama bin Laden and Khaled Sheikh Mohammed issue detailed Koranic expositions justifying violence and hatred; but when people like Geert Wilders and others report about such expositions, that's "negative stereotyping." Read more ...
Source: Jihad Watch
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
Friday, October 2, 2009
John Esposito: Reputation vs. Reality
John Esposito has enjoyed substantial respect in his role as a Georgetown University professor of Religion and International Affairs, specializing in Islamic studies, as well as the founding director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at the Walsh School of Foreign Service.
But whether he deserves that respect is put in serious doubt when assessing his cozy ties with radical Islamists and his repeated defense of their ideology -- a relationship that is detailed in a newly issued report by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT).
The report acknowledges Esposito's impressive pedigree as an award-winning professor, an author of more than 30 books, a consultant for the Gallup polling organization and an expert on Islam frequently called upon to brief government agencies including the State Department, FBI, CIA, Department of Homeland Security and various branches of the military.
But it determines that his "outspoken defense of radical Islam calls his reliability as an objective academic and impartial educator into question." Read more ...
But whether he deserves that respect is put in serious doubt when assessing his cozy ties with radical Islamists and his repeated defense of their ideology -- a relationship that is detailed in a newly issued report by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT).
The report acknowledges Esposito's impressive pedigree as an award-winning professor, an author of more than 30 books, a consultant for the Gallup polling organization and an expert on Islam frequently called upon to brief government agencies including the State Department, FBI, CIA, Department of Homeland Security and various branches of the military.
But it determines that his "outspoken defense of radical Islam calls his reliability as an objective academic and impartial educator into question." Read more ...
Source: IPT News
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
Friday, September 25, 2009
A UN State of Mind: Where Tyrants Are Literally Never Stopped.
We live at a moment in history when tyrants hold forth with none to stop them. Ahmadinejad-the-Monster held forth in all his western-suited glory at the UN and so did the terrorist, Gaddafi.
No one at the UN stopped the Libyan madman from speaking well beyond his allotted 15 minutes. If the UN can’t even do this, can you imagine them actually stopping a genocide or a terrorist plot in process?
If they can’t or won’t, why are we funding them? Why do they exist?
The American President has decided to “engage” with the UN and with the world of tyrants. Perhaps he can, perhaps he thinks like them. Me - I have an increasingly hard time dealing with their righteous arrogance and post-colonial resentments, not to mention their demonization of Israel. For example, let me share two recent conversations with you.
In retrospect, both conversations were a little like talking to Red Guard Maoist youth leaders in 1949 in China.
The first conversation took place in Rome at the international conference I attended. In my speech I referred to “third world” countries. Immediately afterwards, a young woman in a business suit (pants and a jacket) started following me around. She was from South Africa and was pleasant enough but strangely persistent. She said: “We do not say ‘third world.’ That suggests that one world is ‘first’ and the others, last, or lesser. We would like you to say ‘developing world’ instead. Isn’t that more hopeful?”
Said I: “You make an interesting point and I actually agree with you. Going forward, I might do as you suggest.”
But she was programmed to go on, to wear down, force concessions, so that everyone will think exactly as she does. She was not used to easy victories and did not seem to hear or believe me. She continued explaining why ‘third world’ was a derogatory phrase and not a good post-colonial way of thinking.
I repeated that I agreed with her. When she continued to press on, I backed away. Afterwards, I thought that she had shown very little respect for one of the keynote speakers (myself) whose presentation had just excited a good deal of interest. Ah–she was psychologically programmed to go after those in positions of authority.
The second conversation took place in New York City. I was interviewing a college graduate for a potential position. One young woman identified herself as a feminist—but then quickly told me she was a Muslim and that some of her female relatives wear hijab and that their decision was a private one that no government should abrogate.
I said that given my work and given how strongly I’d bonded with a stellar group of Muslim feminists at the conference in Rome, I would welcome a Muslim feminist on the job. And, I agreed with her about the importance of separating religion from state–but then said that the matter was still exceedingly tricky.
Said I: “One does not want the government mixing in matters of religion or telling women what to wear but as long as Muslim girls and women can be killed for refusing to wear hijab, how can we as feminists fully support it?”
Throwing all caution to the winds, I referred her to my website and recommended some books including Nonie Darwish’s Cruel and Usual Punishment, and a new and rather elegant little book by Marnia Lazreg titled Questioning the Veil. Open Letters to Muslim Women.
I should have kept my mouth shut. Read more here ...
Source: Chesler Chronicles
No one at the UN stopped the Libyan madman from speaking well beyond his allotted 15 minutes. If the UN can’t even do this, can you imagine them actually stopping a genocide or a terrorist plot in process?
If they can’t or won’t, why are we funding them? Why do they exist?
The American President has decided to “engage” with the UN and with the world of tyrants. Perhaps he can, perhaps he thinks like them. Me - I have an increasingly hard time dealing with their righteous arrogance and post-colonial resentments, not to mention their demonization of Israel. For example, let me share two recent conversations with you.
In retrospect, both conversations were a little like talking to Red Guard Maoist youth leaders in 1949 in China.
The first conversation took place in Rome at the international conference I attended. In my speech I referred to “third world” countries. Immediately afterwards, a young woman in a business suit (pants and a jacket) started following me around. She was from South Africa and was pleasant enough but strangely persistent. She said: “We do not say ‘third world.’ That suggests that one world is ‘first’ and the others, last, or lesser. We would like you to say ‘developing world’ instead. Isn’t that more hopeful?”
Said I: “You make an interesting point and I actually agree with you. Going forward, I might do as you suggest.”
But she was programmed to go on, to wear down, force concessions, so that everyone will think exactly as she does. She was not used to easy victories and did not seem to hear or believe me. She continued explaining why ‘third world’ was a derogatory phrase and not a good post-colonial way of thinking.
I repeated that I agreed with her. When she continued to press on, I backed away. Afterwards, I thought that she had shown very little respect for one of the keynote speakers (myself) whose presentation had just excited a good deal of interest. Ah–she was psychologically programmed to go after those in positions of authority.
The second conversation took place in New York City. I was interviewing a college graduate for a potential position. One young woman identified herself as a feminist—but then quickly told me she was a Muslim and that some of her female relatives wear hijab and that their decision was a private one that no government should abrogate.
I said that given my work and given how strongly I’d bonded with a stellar group of Muslim feminists at the conference in Rome, I would welcome a Muslim feminist on the job. And, I agreed with her about the importance of separating religion from state–but then said that the matter was still exceedingly tricky.
Said I: “One does not want the government mixing in matters of religion or telling women what to wear but as long as Muslim girls and women can be killed for refusing to wear hijab, how can we as feminists fully support it?”
Throwing all caution to the winds, I referred her to my website and recommended some books including Nonie Darwish’s Cruel and Usual Punishment, and a new and rather elegant little book by Marnia Lazreg titled Questioning the Veil. Open Letters to Muslim Women.
I should have kept my mouth shut. Read more here ...
Source: Chesler Chronicles
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
British Government Funds Muslim Brotherhood-Related Organization
A British government funded organization has donated nearly £50,000 to a Muslim Brotherhood connected organization, according to a UK think tank. The Center for Social Cohesion, an organization specializing in the study of extremism in Britain, reports that Preventing Violent Extremism (PVE) established in 2007 to "work with Muslim organisations to tackle violent extremism" had donated £48,000 pounds (almost $80,000) to the Muslim Welfare House (MWH)
MWH is a member of Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe (FIOE.) The FIOE serves as an umbrella organization for most European Brotherhood group, according to analyst Lorenzo Vidino. The House has had on its board such extremists as Mohammed Sawalha, a former Hamas leader. Earlier this year, Sawalha signed a declaration in Istanbul in support of Hamas. One of the clauses in the document called for fighting "by all ways and means' foreign navies preventing the smuggling of arms into Gaza. The British navy was engaged in that very activity. Other MWH officials have had definite Muslim Brotherhood ties, according to the think tank.
None of the extremists are currently on the board of MWH. However, its ties to FIOE remain. At a time in which the UK is subject to intense international criticism for the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi the convicted Lockerbie bomber, the British government would do well to more closely vet the recipients of its largesse.
MWH is a member of Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe (FIOE.) The FIOE serves as an umbrella organization for most European Brotherhood group, according to analyst Lorenzo Vidino. The House has had on its board such extremists as Mohammed Sawalha, a former Hamas leader. Earlier this year, Sawalha signed a declaration in Istanbul in support of Hamas. One of the clauses in the document called for fighting "by all ways and means' foreign navies preventing the smuggling of arms into Gaza. The British navy was engaged in that very activity. Other MWH officials have had definite Muslim Brotherhood ties, according to the think tank.
None of the extremists are currently on the board of MWH. However, its ties to FIOE remain. At a time in which the UK is subject to intense international criticism for the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi the convicted Lockerbie bomber, the British government would do well to more closely vet the recipients of its largesse.
Source: IPT Blog
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
Monday, September 21, 2009
Feingold Moves to Strike Material Support Law
As we reported earlier this week, Congress is set to debate the reauthorization of several provisions of the PATRIOT Act next week. While that discussion will focus on three of the more controversial provisions of the much maligned law, some members of Congress are more interested in seeking expansive overhaul, effectively gutting the PATRIOT Act. Friday, Senator Russ Feingold introduced the JUSTICE Act, a bill proposing wide ranging amendments to this critical counter-terrorism tool.
Among the provisions in the JUSTICE Act is an amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, commonly referred to as the "material support" statute. If the amendment suggested by Senator Feingold is approved, the "new" statute will read in part:
Among the provisions in the JUSTICE Act is an amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, commonly referred to as the "material support" statute. If the amendment suggested by Senator Feingold is approved, the "new" statute will read in part:
"Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, knowing or intending that the material support or resources will be used in carrying out terrorist activity...[shall violate the statute]." [amendment text italicized]Under current law, federal prosecutors must show that an individual provided financial, logistical, or other resources to a terrorist organization, whether or not they intended the donation to support violence. In announcing this change, Senator Feingold explained that the revision would require "that a person must know or intend that support provided will be used for terrorist activity." In reality, this amendment would eviscerate the statute—stripping the government of a valuable tool in the fight against the support structure of international terrorist organizations. The fact is that the italicized portion above is a tremendous departure from Congressional intent, long standing judicial precedent, and common sense. Read more ...
Source: IPT Blog
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
